Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 572 posts

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#401

Post by gnulinux »

minikites wrote: post #360
crumbshot wrote: post #326

This is far too low. A fine large enough to destroy the company (as was effectively done to Purdue) would have been the only palatable outcome. And even more importantly, legal repercussions for all their employees who were personally responsible for this. All this settlement achieves is 'a cost of doing business', as they say. It's not punishment or deterrence. McKinsey and other companies like them will do similar…

If big companies started facing consequences for their actions our economy would fall apart.

So let's allow all big companies to do whatever the fuck they want, because otherwise "our economy would fall apart"? This is the darkest comment I read on HN.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#402

Post by arcticbull »

bumby wrote: post #394
arcticbull wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is in line with the results of Canada's early UBI experiments; substantially nobody left the workforce except to pursue liberal arts or stay-at-home parenting, both of which have intrinsic value. People are motivated by a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors, including their social group at work, finding meaning in their lives through their work, and so on. UBI and unemployment isn't provide enough for…

I think the major fault with these studies is there participants know the benefits will end. I think this biases them towards continued working because they view it as a short term windfall that won’t sustain them rather than a long term solution. It would be incredibly hard to design an experiment to control for this. Conversely, I think the hard part about implementing UBI is that it would be incredibly hard to rol…

Indeed, I think the challenge is around committing to a 50 year study that they won't cancel later in a discretionary way.

> Conversely, I think the hard part about implementing UBI is that it would be incredibly hard to roll back once people become accustomed to it

So we are left with something people like and don't want to give up, and that's bad because... :)

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#403

Post by liminal »

malandrew wrote: post #367
arcticbull wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that this is a very difficult situation all around. 1) Lenders probably shouldn't be lending money to people they know cannot repay the debts. This is also why APRs are so high - most people simply don't. 2) People who know they can't repay the debts shouldn't be borrowing in the first place. This is also why lenders have to go to such extremes to collect their debts. This is a function of being poor i…

How do you design an unemployment/UBI system that provides an incentive not to use it unless necessary and not to stay on it any longer than is necessary?

The "U" in UBI stands for "universal". Everyone gets it all the time.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#404

Post by s1artibartfast »

ashtonkem wrote: post #357
phrz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to be made to pay out and concede liability, why not simply go to trial and suffer the same legal fate? It's not there as a mere legalese recitation or to shield the defendant's ego. To finish your rhetorical question, the reason you pay out but admit no wrongdoing is in recognition of the risk of financial liability stemming from the litigation.

I want them to go to trial. I think it’s incredibly unseemly that we as a society bring down the hammer on individual drug dealers, but let corporate ones wash the blood off their hands with shareholder money. Each one of these people deserves a pair of steel bracelets and their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.

I think McKenzie would be found innocent in a court of law. This is a settlement because they don’t want to be dragged through the mud in PR. They provided advice, the company chose to act on it. Unless their Advice Misslead regarding the legal risk, they are in the clear. If it was misleading, the damages would be to Purdue.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#405

Post by pessimizer »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #324
iujjkfjdkkdkf wrote: post #93

The war on drugs is responsible for the opioid crisis. Companies psychopathically seek out profits, and need to be kept in check, but that does not diminish the fact that US (and Canadian) drug policy bears direct responsibility for opioid deaths. This kind of news story, while maybe satisfying, is a red herring. As long as addiction is criminalized, and legal drug supplies dont exist, it doesn't matter how many Purd…

I would say the FDA who approved the use of these drugs, and the doctors who set up businesses specifically to give bogus prescriptions to abusers are the most culpable in all of this. The people who end up paying these big settlements are targeted because they have the most money, not because they're the most culpable. The big evil company narrative is also a fantastic way to distract from the fact that regulatory f…

The same people working in the industry are regulating the industry. It's not a scapegoating of McKinsey, it's the giving of a small fine to an abstract entity that can easily absorb it while every actual person involved got rich, including at McKinsey.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#406

Post by s1artibartfast »

josho wrote: post #317
frankbreetz wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>As part of the settlement, McKinsey admits to no wrongdoing. https://www.npr.org/2021/02/04/963864747/consulting-giant-mc...

We should do away with settling out of court without a statement of who is at fault. The court could reject the settlement if the core issue of the case is not addressed. By way of analogy this is why it’s a needed change. Applying settlements to criminal law I could murder you, and settle the case for some dollar amount and not have to admit guilt. In short settling out of court is a way for the wealthy to avoid mea…

I don’t think it was a criminal case but a civil one. The plaintiff can drop it if they want.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#407

Post by JoeAltmaier »

gnulinux wrote: post #401
minikites wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If big companies started facing consequences for their actions our economy would fall apart.

So let's allow all big companies to do whatever the fuck they want, because otherwise "our economy would fall apart"? This is the darkest comment I read on HN.

This is a common exaggeration used in a variety of ways. A Basic Income will destroy the economy (because the US economy depends utterly on a slave-labor class?) Or electric cars will destroy the economy because whatever. Its thrown around here a lot.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#408

Post by JoeAltmaier »

crumbshot wrote: post #326

This is far too low. A fine large enough to destroy the company (as was effectively done to Purdue) would have been the only palatable outcome. And even more importantly, legal repercussions for all their employees who were personally responsible for this. All this settlement achieves is 'a cost of doing business', as they say. It's not punishment or deterrence. McKinsey and other companies like them will do similar…

Yes, as soon as you put a price on malfeasance, it becomes a spreadsheet decision for a corporation.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#409

Post by jrumbut »

malandrew wrote: post #367
arcticbull wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that this is a very difficult situation all around. 1) Lenders probably shouldn't be lending money to people they know cannot repay the debts. This is also why APRs are so high - most people simply don't. 2) People who know they can't repay the debts shouldn't be borrowing in the first place. This is also why lenders have to go to such extremes to collect their debts. This is a function of being poor i…

How do you design an unemployment/UBI system that provides an incentive not to use it unless necessary and not to stay on it any longer than is necessary?

I would say that while this is a real concern, our current system places way too high a priority on addressing it.

Re: McKinsey to pay $573M to settle claims over opioid crisis role: source

#410

Post by ashtonkem »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #404
ashtonkem wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want them to go to trial. I think it’s incredibly unseemly that we as a society bring down the hammer on individual drug dealers, but let corporate ones wash the blood off their hands with shareholder money. Each one of these people deserves a pair of steel bracelets and their day in court in front of a jury of their peers.

I think McKenzie would be found innocent in a court of law. This is a settlement because they don’t want to be dragged through the mud in PR. They provided advice, the company chose to act on it. Unless their Advice Misslead regarding the legal risk, they are in the clear. If it was misleading, the damages would be to Purdue.

I’m no lawyer, but providing advice to a client who then goes ahead and breaks the law with said advice sure sounds like it meets the federal charge of conspiracy.
Post reply on HN